A much earlier announcement than people were expecting especially considering the gaps between previous OS's were around 2 years. This has been less than a year! Although it won't come out until late summer, so we have a while to wait yet.

Haven't bought 10.7 yet. There was no meaningful upgrade over 10.6. It, like, scrolls windows more badly and that's it.

Just wait for a certain Mac partisan to show up and explain in excruciating detail why you need Lion NOW.

FWIW my wife just recently upgraded from Tiger to Snow Leopard. I predict she'll skip Lion and go to Mountain Lion if there's som great development she needs or, if like Tiger, it just becomes obsolete.

[Edited 2012-02-16 09:05:32]

South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.

If you have an iPhone, the integration with iCloud is quite good, reason why I upgraded!

I like Lion overall, i've only been on it for a few days. There was a really annoying default behavior when you closed the laptop with an external monitor. SL went to sleep, Lion by default goes into clamshell mode. Apple offers no option to change this, but some smart people found you could change something in PRAM to go back to the SL behavior.

ML doesn't seem like much of a change. Surprised they are calling it a new OS and not just 10.7.4

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 10):ML doesn't seem like much of a change. Surprised they are calling it a new OS and not just 10.7.4

Indeed, one possibility is to get users to pay 30 bucks every 12-18 months for minor OS upgrades, another far more likely possibility is to remove themselves from the Lion fiasco - the Vista of Apple.

Also to be more in sync with the latest cloud-fad, shopping "experience" and swipes one finds on the iOS gadgets.

Apple has stopped referring to the OS as Mac OS X, it is now just OS X; there is no server version, OS X is now the most "advanced" (yeah right) *desktop* OS according to Apple's own website; every update major or minor is just about ecosystem integration or shopping and the Mac App Store is being set up as the inevitable walled garden with Gate Keeper.

Apple didn't even bother to make an event or a presentation for the announcement of this "new" OS X. Just called the most egregious Mac sycophant on the planet and said: Meet us Gruber, we need to show you something to blog about.

When I first read about some of the features they are adding (notification center) I thought "oh great, they are making the desktop into a giant version of iOS"; kind of like how Microsoft is putting that nasty Metro UI on Windows 8 -
However on looking at the website, this seems to be the best parts of iOS being added to Mac OS X.
Notification Center looks quite useful to me, as does integrating iMessage.

I skipped lion, but if my Mac isn't too old I will be able to upgrade to Mountain Lion.

Kev.

The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13): I have an 8 year old G5 iMac that I'll replace with a new one after the next upgrade. Will pass it on to the grandkids.

Cool story bro. What will the grandkids do with a machine that can't even run Snow Leopard? Leopard can't run the recent software. The best browser you can run is Firefox 3.6.26. That's the lastest browser of any kind that runs on PPC.

While an 8 year old Wintel can run XP, which can run the recent software, including the latest Chrome and Flash and whatnot them kids love these days. Apple: insanely obsolete.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13): That $30 price tag did shake up pricing. Makes it clear that an OS, including Windows, shouldn't be very expensive. Nor should there be multiple version for consumers to choose from.

People pay for Windows because they have to, not because they want to. Mac ... oops sorry OS X has always been considerably cheaper in retail than Windows. At least on the surface. As everyone knows, Windows isn't released that often, every 5 years or so on average. So the 120 bucks every two years for OS X was not that amazing considering the 500 bucks paid for Windows every 5 years. Besides, OS X has always been covered in part by hardware sales. In the end it doesn't matter what OS X costs or doesn't cost. At least not for the Windows price tag.

So seeing as the main features of OS X Mountain Lion is a handful of shareware-class apps and the ability to mirror the monitor wirelessly, with a bunch of half-assed iOS "features" being jammed in there for no good reason, and that Lion was Apple's Vista, let's see if 30 bucks won't turn into 0 bucks as they just decide to give the OS away. I wouldn't pay more than zero for it anyway.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13): So let's see if MS is able to deliver an OS at the same price points. Maybe with Longhorn.

Apple is big and important today, more so than I ever could imagine. Yet in the space of desktop OS, Apple is rather insignificant and Microsoft holds the monopoly. Perhaps if OS X could run on generic peezoids, the pricing of it could affect the pricing of Windows, but in the current situation the two just don't affect each other.

Look at Mac sales compared to PC sales for the past few years. Lion seems to be selling pretty well, as do Macs loaded with Lion.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 16): Yet in the space of desktop OS, Apple is rather insignificant and Microsoft holds the monopoly.

Macs are profitable. OS X is profitable. iOS devices are profitable. What appears to be insignificant is the five year performance that MS has delivered to it's shareholders.

Reality is that a business does not have to be the biggest in order to perform very well and be very profitable. Look at how well the PC makers are doing. Their margins? Their ability to deliver new products that change the market?

So Apple is insignificant in some areas? And they are laughing all the way to the banks - as are their shareholders.

And their customers continually rank the company ahead of the competition.

I imagine there will be a host of new features announced in time. Chances are iOS6 will be out around the same time so theres probably a few features that both will have they want to keep under wraps for the time being.

Well well well..........what have we here ? A bunch of Apple devotees, yes sireee !

While all of you windows fanatics are busy bashing all things Apple, I'm happily sitting here with my 8 yr old iMac G-5, (running Jaguar I might add), and everything is just hunky dory !

I was having a huge problem until 2 weeks ago though; the thing had slowed down to a crawl, nothing worked right, and I had just about made up my mind to spring for a new 27 in iMac; I had to go to Cincinnati 2 weeks ago, so I threw the old iMac into a suitcase, and lugged her along; got done with my business, ( which BTW left me with a 25K cashier's check in my hot little hands), got to the "Fruit Store" at 7:00 PM, took all of 5 min. to get an appt. with the "genius bar", and another 10 minutes for a "real genius" to get the old iMac running like an Indy car !

Oh, how much did all that genius knowledge cost ? Like $ 000.00 ! (Betcha can't do that with your PC Asturius !)

I was STILL gonna buy a new iMac though; only the fruit Store couldn't give me 23K in change.

All of this "ranting" about OS X versions..................someone please explain to me one thing; a lot of people DESPISE Apple products; no problem here; they seem to be doing just swell anyway ! I'm not "huge" on windows or PCs, even though I did buy Miss Arlie a new Dell lap top with Win 7 running, about 6 months ago; she likes the thing, but never uses it any more, since I got her a Kindle Fire; She hasn't put that thing down since she's had it!

But I digress..........I'm trying to determine why so many people make it a career, whining about Apple products. That's all I want to know; WHY does it bugg you so ? Seriously, you're gonna succumb to "Appleairinitus" if you don't quit worrying about what Apple does! Face it guys.......Apple is BETTER ! Sorry, but there's just no other way to put it.
Oh........if you're still worrying about why I'm still running Jaguar..........it's a fair question; I was wondering myself; first, I tend to be kind of lazy; (especially in the winter time) when It's much below about 40 deg. F out, I tend to spend much of my time sitting in my easy chair, watching all the birds in my back yard; I just bought a 100 bag of sunflower seeds Friday, and with the ear corn I put out, we have half the red headed woodpeckers in Parke County feasting right outside the window ! (Which to me is a hell,of a lot more enjoyable than watching "Black Adder" on the Tube.) Yesterday we had a REAL treat; Miss Arlie yelled, "there's a pileated woodpecker out back"; I looked out, saw him /her, and just then his / her mate came down, and we watched both of those gigantic, bigger than crows woodpeckers for about 10 minutes; they won't eat the corn though..........they just like the grubs they peck out of the trees.

Back to why I don't "upgrade" my OS X version; I was going to.........I even went so far as to see "what I'm missing";
guess what.........absolutely NOTHING that I'm interested in ! My present version of Firefox does everything I want, so why should I buy something I neither need, want, or would use ?

I LOVE to spend money on things that make my life better; a new, much bigger iMac would certainly help, and I'll probably still buy one; but last week was Valentine's Day ! Valentine's Day is very important to women, especially Miss Arlie; as her F-150 has been sitting in the driveway all winter needing the fuel line replaced, (and I hate to work on cars when it's cold), she's had to sit around, and ride around with her lady friend because she doesn't drive my 1 ton diesel dually; so I got Miss Arlie a nice Valentine's Day present.............a Cube. She loves her cube and it make her very happy; anything that makes her happy, makes me happy; the magnet material for the magnet door signs should be here today; soon as I get them on the doors, I'll post a picture of.........Miss Arlie's Cube.

Charley

Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein

When the Mac line has growth rates significantly greater than the PC world I would consider them to be around for a long time.

Look at the PC OEMs and find those who are not even maintaining their sales rates. Or remember PC companies like IBM, Compaq, Burrows, NCR, etc.

Then start considering the impact of ultra thin margins the PC companies have to live with in order to get the corporate business, or sell computers at Best Buy and WalMart.

Of course, your point about the Macs becoming extinct might be based on the iOS market totally eliminating the desktop market and I don't see that happening.

The desktop will continue to be needed for many reasons and notebooks will continue, even if they end up running iOS.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):Of course I don't have to worry about paying to have it fixed, or taking it anywhere for that matter. I fix it myself.

That nice for you. For others there is no desire to work under the hood of a car or the inside of a computer. The old tower design is pretty nice for those who want to buy parts and play with them. Notebooks make it a bit difficult to build your won, or to repair your own.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):Too bad you can't say the same about Apple and people's dependence on the "Geniuses", if it weren't for Apple's need of closed architecture

There is one simple fact about the Genius Bar in Apple Stores - they are successful. If they weren't then Apple would have dropped them instead of building them up. Just like the Apple Store themselves, which are the most successful retail operations around. They deliver better performance per square foot than Tiffany's.

Maybe the normal, average consumer is preferring Apple's approach to business and design than the alternatives.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 28):The desktop will continue to be needed for many reasons

Im not totally sure about the desktop .. at latest corporate gig I have no desktop. Just a Dell winbook and some monitors. At home, no desktop. I don't expect to buy another one, either. Macbook is powerful enough.

Apple does not seem 100% committed to "computers" anymore. It's a backwater for them, or something.

Quoting geezer (Reply 26): Oh, how much did all that genius knowledge cost ? Like $ 000.00 ! (Betcha can't do that with your PC Asturius !)

I use a Mac, geezur. I've used Macs exclusively since 1994. I'm writing this on a G4, running Leopard. It's a ten year old machine. Not my main machine, but goes to show that the old-school Macs were built to last.

The new ones.. not so much. They're built to be replaced in 2-3 years.

What was your point there? So you made the logical fallacy of assuming no Mac owner can criticise Apple products. I reserve a right to criticise any bad product or one that doesn't live up to its hype. Macs and Apple products sure tend to fall into that category these days.

All modern Macs run on *exactly* the same hardware as "PC", in fact they can all run Windows. Hardware-wise, Macs have no particular advantages other than that they are more appealing aesthetically.

It's the same stuff as a PC only with an Apple logo and a higher price tag.

Quoting geezer (Reply 26): While all of you windows fanatics are busy bashing all things Apple, I'm happily sitting here with my 8 yr old iMac G-5, (running Jaguar I might add), and everything is just hunky dory !

The iMac G5 is a very fine piece of machinery. Jaguar and up to Leopard (on PPC, Snow Leopard on Intel) are very good, stable and reliable OS's. Certainly aren't above criticism but for their time, the best money could buy. Of course Windows 7 has reached the level of Jaguar/Leopard in those terms.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Mediocre these days needs to focus on the whole package and IMO Apple does a better job of that. Others are free to feel different.

It is certainly one of Apple's main advantages over the entire history of their existence is this policy of focusing on the whole package, from hardware to software to intangibles such as experience.

Other companies have done so as well, but not survived (e.g. Commodore, Atari etc.) and other companies have done so in other fields (e.g. consumer electronics) - for instance Sony and Nintendo.

Apple used to be so far ahead of such companies that it wasn't really comparable. They were in a league of their own. Now Apple shares a league with others in this and it's not so much that others have improved their standards (though they have!) but also that Apple has lowered it's own standards. They meet somewhere in "average land", but that's not Apple that I signed up with.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
That long term delay that I remember was based on the Longhorn FUBAR. Do you think MS will wait 5 years before delivering Win 8?

Windows 3 to 95 was about 5 years, Windows 95 to XP was 6 years, Windows XP to Vista was another 6 years - then there are intermediate fixes in between such as Windows 98, Windows 7.

Windows 8 is Windows 7 plus a mobile UI that they've been working on for years already. Hardly takes 5 years to make. Even Redmond doesn't take that long to put Windows 8 together with those ingredients.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Look at Mac sales compared to PC sales for the past few years. Lion seems to be selling pretty well, as do Macs loaded with Lion.

Look at Wintel sales since the beginning compared to the Mac, are you going to argue that Windows was always exponentially better than the Mac until recently?

Fact is Windows sold extremely well, amazingly well and despite the fact that it sucked rocks. The fact that Apple Macs are finally experiencing a sales boost, selling faster than the Wintel market, says absolutely nothing about quality.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
So Apple is insignificant in some areas? And they are laughing all the way to the banks - as are their shareholders.

I don't doubt that "they're laughing all the way to the banks", as was Microsoft of the 90s and their shareholders. One thing about Apple shareholders in general (disclaimer: I am a part of them, but mostly as a symbolic act, not for investment) Apple shareholders can go suck it if it means a better Mac for me.

In fact the very mention that Apple shareholders or the company itself is piling up cash all the while making the Mac worse, doesn't create any sympathy for those leeches on my behalf. My interests as a customer and the interests of shareholders don't match.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
And their customers continually rank the company ahead of the competition.

No doubt. Apple's products may break down a lot but as long as one is under warranty they're ready to replace that product no questions asked.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):
Of course I don't have to worry about paying to have it fixed, or taking it anywhere for that matter. I fix it myself.

Very true. It must also be pointed out that Apple generally doesn't fix their products, they just replace them. Sure if a HD goes or something banal, they'll fix it, but while in warranty Apple's policy is just to replace the thing and get to the next customer.

If one doesn't have warranty, fixing the thing costs more than getting a new one.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):Apple does not seem 100% committed to "computers" anymore. It's a backwater for them, or something.

Apple has continued development of the Mac lines - just look at the MacBook Air. At the same time, Apple has grabbed the Tiger by the tail in the mobile sector with iPads, iPhones and iPod touches. Reality is that little old Apple is delivering two mainline OS platforms and products to use those platforms. That is requiring a huge investment, which the company has not hesitated to make.

On the Mac side, it might be helpful to look at the MacBook line. Each MacBook on the market is made from the block of aluminum, which has required in a huge investment in machines to carve out those blocks. That is a major commitment to the Mac lines.

It is also important to remember that iOS was derived from OS X. Work is being carried out on both, with some of the look & feel of iOS being moved to OS X in Mountain Lion. That looks to me like Apple is working to get their iOS users to look at Macs. A super charged halo effect.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 31):Apple used to be so far ahead of such companies that it wasn't really comparable.

Looking at the mobile sector they still are pretty far ahead. Look at the competition for the iPad. Remember HP's efforts?

Quoting Asturias (Reply 31):Now Apple shares a league with others in this and it's not so much that others have improved their standards (though they have!) but also that Apple has lowered it's own standards.

Apple shares a processor with others since moving to the Intel platform. That move was needed because first Motorola and then IBM failed to deliver PowerPC advances that Apple needed.

In terms of "lowering their standards", take a close look a the MacBook platform. Look at the focus on the products, from hardware design to engineering to software.

I forgot when Windows 3.1 was released. How many years after the release of the Mac was that? IIRC, it took MS 10 years after the Mac to deliver Win 95, which was the first major challenge to Macs OS.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 31):Look at Wintel sales since the beginning compared to the Mac, are you going to argue that Windows was always exponentially better than the Mac until recently?

You need to go back to the 80s to see where WinTel came from. There was Apple in the market, PC-M (?) was the "powerhouse" hobby machine and computers like Commodore were selling well.

Then IBM released their PC. That was the spark that ignited personal computer sales in the corporate world. At that time IBM was considered the most trustworthy computer company for the corporate world. If they sold a PC then it was OK for companies to buy them. The IBM PC, not a Wintel computer. Both Intel and MS were blessed with being selected by IBM for the IBM Computer.

That opening of the corporate door by IBM is what gave Wintel the advantage in the market. Companies bought IBM PCs, worked deals for their employees to get big discounts, etc. The initial competition in the Wintel world was from other big corporate names, like NCR and Xerox. Compaq came in with their portable and then a desktop.

And all of these PCs were expensive. Until companies like Dell came along.

Reality is that the explosion of Wintel computers wasn't based on it being "better" than Apple computers, it was based on the "Seal of Approval" the corporate world gave it because of IBM's name.

What it does say is that consumers are looking at Macs after experiencing other Apple products. It also points to the benefit of exposure Apple has with their Apple Stores. People need to experience a Mac at some level before buying one and the Stores provide that opportunity.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 30):I use a Mac, geezur. I've used Macs exclusively since 1994. I'm writing this on a G4, running Leopard. It's a ten year old machine. Not my main machine, but goes to show that the old-school Macs were built to last.

The new ones.. not so much. They're built to be replaced in 2-3 years.

Well, none of us can really look into the inner minds of the top brass at Apple, but anyone can look into how their products are actually designed and built. And the quality level has substantially risen during the 15 years I'm using them. Compared to their current lineup, the old machines had much lower quality standards by comparison, and they had already been top-notch in their day.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 30):All modern Macs run on *exactly* the same hardware as "PC", in fact they can all run Windows. Hardware-wise, Macs have no particular advantages other than that they are more appealing aesthetically.

It's the same stuff as a PC only with an Apple logo and a higher price tag.

The same CPUs, chipsets, memory and graphics processors? Yes (with occasional exceptions). That's just a part of the whole package, however.

Features like MagSafe, Thunderbolt, far better trackpads, EFI and lots of others are still exclusive or have been for quite some time.

Quality-wise you can get close to the Macs with some of the more expensive PCs. But you still won't have the seamless integration of the entire system, the OS and the hardware literally being made for each other, and to standards which are rarely matched on the PC side.

Sure, if you simply refuse to recognize the features you're paying for in a Mac, you can pretend that the cheapest-possible PCs were "just the same". And if you can keep that distorted perception up while actually using both next to each other, all the better for you.

Those of us who are afflicted with the capability to actually notice the differences, however, may still want to pay more to get more.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 31):Apple used to be so far ahead of such companies that it wasn't really comparable. They were in a league of their own. Now Apple shares a league with others in this and it's not so much that others have improved their standards (though they have!) but also that Apple has lowered it's own standards. They meet somewhere in "average land", but that's not Apple that I signed up with.

The 1980s are gone, and so are the 1990s and the 2000s, for that matter. And with the years we've all gotten older (and some of us even bitter).

Apple has changed probably even more thoroughly than any of the other players in the market, but at least most of us who actually still use their current products agree that they've improved at the very least for the most part.

When I look at the current Macs and at the current mainstream PCs, I see nothing to lure me to the PC side. I buy computers too infrequently for skimping on quality when I eventually do. And while there are a few quality PCs as well which come close to a Mac on the hardware quality side (or even exceed it on occasion), they're still blighted by a shoddily integrated default OS which never lets them actually realize their theoretical attraction.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 31):Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
That long term delay that I remember was based on the Longhorn FUBAR. Do you think MS will wait 5 years before delivering Win 8?

Windows 3 to 95 was about 5 years, Windows 95 to XP was 6 years, Windows XP to Vista was another 6 years - then there are intermediate fixes in between such as Windows 98, Windows 7.

What eventually came out as "Vista" had been planned as project "Longhorn" at MS and they botched the conceptual design so thoroughly that the release had to be postponed for several years, and in the end the result still came out a dud. So Ken is indeed correct. This was a painful accident with consequently caused substantial damage to Microsoft's brand, both by its delay and by its actual result. Microsofts declining influence on the computing field has started exactly during that period.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 31):Fact is Windows sold extremely well, amazingly well and despite the fact that it sucked rocks. The fact that Apple Macs are finally experiencing a sales boost, selling faster than the Wintel market, says absolutely nothing about quality.

Except that the actual quality is a much bigger factor for self-using buyers (Mac users) than for corporate purchasing departments (a large segment of all PC acquisitions, and the main driver of PC adoption in the earlier years). The Mac has thrived primarily through satisfied users spreading the word, the PC through corporate pressure almost entirely independent of product quality.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 32):Very true. It must also be pointed out that Apple generally doesn't fix their products, they just replace them. Sure if a HD goes or something banal, they'll fix it, but while in warranty Apple's policy is just to replace the thing and get to the next customer.

Nope. When you're getting a replacement product from Apple, your machine is still being repaired; Just instead of keeping you waiting for weeks and weeks until their technicians get around to your particular machine you get your replacement much earlier and your old machine is refurbished and given to somebody else (or resold at a discount) if possible. In the end that's much more efficient for everybody involved.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 32):If one doesn't have warranty, fixing the thing costs more than getting a new one.

Really? Can I have an example for that?

That a repair can be considered uneconomical if it costs more than the depreciated value of the device can and does happen everywhere. That a repair would cost more than a new replacement is extremely rare, however.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Well, none of us can really look into the inner minds of the top brass at Apple, but anyone can look into how their products are actually designed and built. And the quality level has substantially risen during the 15 years I'm using them. Compared to their current lineup, the old machines had much lower quality standards by comparison, and they had already been top-notch in their day.

Whether one can or cannot look into the minds of Apple's top brass is neither here nor there - but your claim is quite unsubstantiated that quality level has risen,

It's quite the opposite, it has fallen. Quite dramatically. I'm sort of not surprised that you claim the opposite, since the best tactic of any propaganda is to claim that one's most evident weakness is actually not a weakness at all, it's strength!

But it isn't, and Apple's product quality is and has been sliding down for the better part of a decade. Apple used to be the gold standard for product quality, but now there are many competitors for that place. In mobile devices there's Samsung, HTC and Nokia, in laptops there's Acer, Sony and Lenovo and in towers... well since Apple hasn't updated it's tower in almost 2 years, pretty much everyone has them licked there.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): The same CPUs, chipsets, memory and graphics processors? Yes (with occasional exceptions). That's just a part of the whole package, however.

Somewhat disappointingly the occasional exceptions that you mention is when other brands offer better hardware (e.g. better GPUs) than Apple Macs. So yeah, it's basically the same, except in the cases when others are offering better hardware than Apple.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Features like MagSafe, Thunderbolt, far better trackpads, EFI and lots of others are still exclusive or have been for quite some time.

Well you got one right, MagSafe is Apple patented, while Thunderbolt is already available on the Sony VAIO Z21, EFI is widely used on various Sandy Bridge based platforms etc. Apple has no exclusivity on good trackpads.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Quality-wise you can get close to the Macs with some of the more expensive PCs. But you still won't have the seamless integration of the entire system, the OS and the hardware literally being made for each other, and to standards which are rarely matched on the PC side.

The more expensive PCs are better than any Mac one can buy for money, but also not more expensive. Especially the towers. Seamless integration is and was and has always been Apple Mac cornerstone, but seeing the constant bugs and often ill performing graphics drivers on Macs for instance, there are deep cracks in that pillar.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Sure, if you simply refuse to recognize the features you're paying for in a Mac, you can pretend that the cheapest-possible PCs were "just the same". And if you can keep that distorted perception up while actually using both next to each other, all the better for you.

It seems you are living in the 90s, when that was a true claim. These days, integration and standardization of Wintels is quite on par with Apple's offering. It's pretty decent on the Wintel side, nothing like before, while Apple has it's own issues with integration of a closed platform. Which is saying something. It doesn't "just work" anymore. Sometimes it just doesn't work.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Those of us who are afflicted with the capability to actually notice the differences, however, may still want to pay more to get more.

Well aren't we the übermench? However, I'd contest that I do actually notice the difference between a highly integrated system and recognize that it is indeed more than a sum of its parts, if done well. Apple has demonstrated that many times in the past, much to my approval. Much less so now. It just isn't an Apple strength anymore, others have joined that party and Apple has been slacking in that department.

No more Java, no more Rosetta, no more FireWire, no more X11, no more BD support (oh wait it wasn't ever there), Lion not registered by Apple as UNIX etc. Today the Apple experience is what Apple wants to sell you, not the best tech, not what you want - just the average package. Nothing to write home about.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): The 1980s are gone, and so are the 1990s and the 2000s, for that matter. And with the years we've all gotten older (and some of us even bitter).

Speak for yourself, perhaps you have become bitter - that's something you have to take up with your therapist (or Siri) - but pointing out that Apple is rapidly becoming the emperor without clothes is just an observation. The same applies for Apple as it does for Hollywood stars; one is only as good as one's last project.

If Apple gets its act together, I'd be the first one to renew my enthusiasm with the company's products. While it makes mediocre products aimed at the expectations of the average Joe, it's pretty hard to justify to pay the Apple tax instead of checking out the competition.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Apple has changed probably even more thoroughly than any of the other players in the market, but at least most of us who actually still use their current products agree that they've improved at the very least for the most part.

Yes they've changed a lot, for the worse. I call bull on your statement that "most of us who actually still use their current products" agree that they've improved. I for one use their most current product a 27" iMac (main machine) and it is annoyingly underwhelming. My friends, some of whom I converted to the Mac in the bad old 90s are certainly positive still towards the Mac, but never impressed.

I'd say Macs have a decent success among people, but despite low quality - considering how many are new to the Mac these days, they've never even seen real quality Macs. They're pretty happy, but ignorance is bliss. In the race to the bottom, everyone is a loser. Apple and its users.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): When I look at the current Macs and at the current mainstream PCs, I see nothing to lure me to the PC side. I buy computers too infrequently for skimping on quality when I eventually do. And while there are a few quality PCs as well which come close to a Mac on the hardware quality side (or even exceed it on occasion), they're still blighted by a shoddily integrated default OS which never lets them actually realize their theoretical attraction.

Wait was that a dis on Windows? If so, I've got one reply: Lion (and Mountain Lion) - in no way superior to Windows 7 and in most cases far less flexible or customizable for user preference. If one finds eye candy annoying in Lion, too bad. In Windows 7 one can turn each element off. Even the drop shadow on the mouse pointer. Not possible to do that in OS X (not Mac anymore btw)

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): What eventually came out as "Vista" had been planned as project "Longhorn" at MS and they botched the conceptual design so thoroughly that the release had to be postponed for several years, and in the end the result still came out a dud. So Ken is indeed correct. This was a painful accident with consequently caused substantial damage to Microsoft's brand, both by its delay and by its actual result. Microsofts declining influence on the computing field has started exactly during that period.

Yepsi pepsi, Vista is Longhorn and Windows 7 is the Longhorn revision. Of course Ken is right about that, it's not a matter of opinion, but historical facts. What is your point?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Except that the actual quality is a much bigger factor for self-using buyers (Mac users) than for corporate purchasing departments (a large segment of all PC acquisitions, and the main driver of PC adoption in the earlier years). The Mac has thrived primarily through satisfied users spreading the word, the PC through corporate pressure almost entirely independent of product quality.

Indeed Macs thrived (or more correctly survived) through satisfied users (such as my self) spreading the word. Now, there's far less spreading of the word. I haven't met any Mac user who actually recommended a Mac to me in years. God knows why they bought it to begin with. They look good? No denying that.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): Nope. When you're getting a replacement product from Apple, your machine is still being repaired; Just instead of keeping you waiting for weeks and weeks until their technicians get around to your particular machine you get your replacement much earlier and your old machine is refurbished and given to somebody else (or resold at a discount) if possible. In the end that's much more efficient for everybody involved.

It comes down to the same thing, it's too much hassle to repair the machine in a timely manner, so it is replaced and it is never user repairable.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34): That a repair can be considered uneconomical if it costs more than the depreciated value of the device can and does happen everywhere. That a repair would cost more than a new replacement is extremely rare, however.

Happened to me with a Macbook with a dead motherboard.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Looking at the mobile sector they still are pretty far ahead. Look at the competition for the iPad. Remember HP's efforts?

Looking at a sector of the mobile sector (i.e. the tablet PCs) then yes, I agree that Apple is pretty far ahead in units sold. In actual tech and OS, not so much. The iPad has a rather dated OS already and doesn't support any I/O nor a file system. It's sandbox, and there's no future in that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Apple shares a processor with others since moving to the Intel platform. That move was needed because first Motorola and then IBM failed to deliver PowerPC advances that Apple needed.

Indeed, but point being that Macs are hardware wise Intel PCs in more than just CPU. The entire chipset (e.g. Sandy Bridge) is Intel standard-issue, thus making it a Windows compatible machine. The only thing that makes it a Mac is that it can run OS X without a hack and has MagSafe (if it's a laptop).

That's it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
In terms of "lowering their standards", take a close look a the MacBook platform. Look at the focus on the products, from hardware design to engineering to software.

Hardware design is generally speaking, Apple's strength, but compared to the VAIOs and the the Acer Zen it's just "on par". Hardware tech is consistently lower and poorer performing on the Mac. Software is OS X, an OS focused on micro-transactions and being an iOS support platform, with some lightly supported UNIX capabilities and poor graphics drivers.

Lowering of standards. Apple of the 80s/90s would never have released some of Apple's "flagship" products - a time some Mac evangelists want to dismiss as a bad time, perhaps because then the Mac was an underdog and they were picked on by stupid Peezoid users, and now they are going to show those bullies! Even though now the Peezoid users are more correct than ever.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
I forgot when Windows 3.1 was released. How many years after the release of the Mac was that? IIRC, it took MS 10 years after the Mac to deliver Win 95, which was the first major challenge to Macs OS.

And yet the PC outsold the mac 20 to 1. Some to corporations, but no less to normal consumers. Some claimed at that time, this was proof that the PC was a superior machine to the Macintosh. Like Mac evangelists today, that's one huge logical fallacy. Popularity has nothing to do with quality, as was painfully obvious in the 80s/90s and again now.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
You need to go back to the 80s to see where WinTel came from. There was Apple in the market, PC-M (?) was the "powerhouse" hobby machine and computers like Commodore were selling well.

Yeah I was there, had the Commodore, had the Atari, had the Mac... never had the WinTel though, but that's about to change.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Reality is that the explosion of Wintel computers wasn't based on it being "better" than Apple computers, it was based on the "Seal of Approval" the corporate world gave it because of IBM's name.

For about two seconds, yes - and then the IBM PC was cloned and everyone started offering it. It survived much thanks to corporate approval, but in the end it was because the competition was either too limited or too expensive. The Mac for example was an expensive joke until 1986. Ironically it didn't gain any credibility in any industry or group until Steve Jobs was fired, since the Mac under his rule was a sandboxed, limited, single-user machine.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
What it does say is that consumers are looking at Macs after experiencing other Apple products. It also points to the benefit of exposure Apple has with their Apple Stores. People need to experience a Mac at some level before buying one and the Stores provide that opportunity.

No argument there. Doesn't say anything about Mac quality, but exposure is very important - as is the halo effect from iOS devices. Sadly, going into an Apple store and seeing what is on display (very few Macs) and seeing the age of the clientele, it's pretty evident where things are heading.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 30):It's the same stuff as a PC only with an Apple logo and a higher price tag.

Pretty much sums it up. The main difference is that for Mac Apple controls everything so drivers, etc work better.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34):Nope. When you're getting a replacement product from Apple, your machine is still being repaired; Just instead of keeping you waiting for weeks and weeks until their technicians get around to your particular machine you get your replacement much earlier and your old machine is refurbished and given to somebody else (or resold at a discount) if possible. In the end that's much more efficient for everybody involved.

No different from Dell and Lenovo.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34):That a repair can be considered uneconomical if it costs more than the depreciated value of the device can and does happen everywhere. That a repair would cost more than a new replacement is extremely rare, however.

Hmm, have taken essentially brand new but water damaged units to the store and been told it is cheaper to buy new on multiple occasions.

May have missed it mentioned above but learned today that Mountain Lion will only run on computers sold 2008 and later.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):The main difference is that for Mac Apple controls everything so drivers, etc work better.

One would think so, and indeed that is the case in many instances, but counter-intuitively that isn't even the case in some rather fundamental instances - such as graphics drivers, which are notoriously and considerably worse on the Macintosh than Windows.

For instance a game that relies on 3D graphics that is published both on the Mac and Windows, and is programmed and published by the same entity on both platforms e.g. World of Warcraft (made for both Mac and Windows by Blizzard) and run on the same hardware - a Mac with both OS X and Windows installed - the Mac version will have close to 33% (one third) less framerate.

Furthermore the Mac supports far fewer drivers, for example my Logitech mouse works on the Mac, but because the Mac doesn't have specific drivers for it, I can only use 3 of 7 buttons on it. On Windows a driver is provided and even a generic Windows mouse driver can provide support for more than 3 buttons (2 plus scroll wheel).

Even more ironically, which goes to my point of the consistent degradation of quality by Apple is that this same mouse is supported by Mac OS 9 and the OS can program every single button on the mouse! OS goddam 9.

Apple's quality in both hardware and software has been sinking for the better part of a decade.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34):What eventually came out as "Vista" had been planned as project "Longhorn" at MS and they botched the conceptual design so thoroughly that the release had to be postponed for several years, and in the end the result still came out a dud. So Ken is indeed correct. This was a painful accident with consequently caused substantial damage to Microsoft's brand, both by its delay and by its actual result. Microsofts declining influence on the computing field has started exactly during that period.

When did Apple's "influence on the computing field" decline? Why even include that element in your reply? Lots of companies have "declines" in influence but that is just business. Some businesses die, some hang on, some return to become very influential again. Look at Apple.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 38):Furthermore the Mac supports far fewer drivers, for example my Logitech mouse works on the Mac, but because the Mac doesn't have specific drivers for it, I can only use 3 of 7 buttons on it. On Windows a driver is provided and even a generic Windows mouse driver can provide support for more than 3 buttons (2 plus scroll wheel).

Funny thing is that many people think I am strange when I tell them that "Right click" is a very important tool to me and one of the things I do not like about Apple. I like my nine-button Logitech mouse, it is important to me. I want to hit one thing to access whatever function i have mapped to that button, I don't want to "hold down this first, then you can do that".

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Ugh, the inconsistent GUI is such a mess it's worth another thread entirely!! It's always been eye candy over function. It's a mess.

Quoting tugger (Reply 40): Funny thing is that many people think I am strange when I tell them that "Right click" is a very important tool to me and one of the things I do not like about Apple. I like my nine-button Logitech mouse, it is important to me. I want to hit one thing to access whatever function i have mapped to that button, I don't want to "hold down this first, then you can do that".

The Apple faithful don't understand right-clicking and for a good reason, Apple never made a mouse worth a damn after 1997 and their attempts at a multi-button mouse (with a touch interface instead of actual buttons) is an ergonomic nightmare.

So the solution: trackpads for desktops! Swipe with different fingers to achieve what a simple button achieves without error. Even three and four finger swipes. Ergonomic nightmares in and of themselves, not to mention the carpal tunnel inducing trackpad.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 28):The old tower design is pretty nice for those who want to buy parts and play with them. Notebooks make it a bit difficult to build your won, or to repair your own.

You have a point in that you can't usually build your own laptop, which is why a lot of manufacturers seem to be offering lots of customization options in their sites. The closest you can get to building one.

As for repairing one, it might be true regarding Apple, but last time I checked, most laptops nowadays come with access panels underneath which make replacing parts easy, at least those that tend to break down more often, namely the harddrive or RAM. Or Steve Job's forbid, the user decides to upgrade the ram or harddrive on its own.

Of course, short of having to change the entire motherboard but thats an issue inherent to the tight packaging of laptops.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 28):There is one simple fact about the Genius Bar in Apple Stores - they are successful.

Yes, by catering to the average joe's mental lazyness.
"I can't be bothered to figure out how to fix this, I'm no techie. I'll have the geek at the genius bar fix it up for me".
Even if it would have been quicker and easier to google for a solution to the "problem" in the first place rather than driving all the way to the closest Hipster center.

But then again, Starbucks' shops nowadays aren't that far away from an Apple store.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 38):Furthermore the Mac supports far fewer drivers, for example my Logitech mouse works on the Mac, but because the Mac doesn't have specific drivers for it, I can only use 3 of 7 buttons on it. On Windows a driver is provided and even a generic Windows mouse driver can provide support for more than 3 buttons (2 plus scroll wheel).

Well, you simply don't know the platform then. (I still don't get why you keep constantly whining and whining about absolutely everything Apple at the top of your lungs but then claim you're still using their products – it's just highly implausible.)

The Mac "supports" as many drivers as you want. I've used USB Overdrive under OS X to stuff my mouse with multiple combinations of buttons and other gestures to my heart's content, before ditching mice entirely a while ago.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 38):Even more ironically, which goes to my point of the consistent degradation of quality by Apple is that this same mouse is supported by Mac OS 9 and the OS can program every single button on the mouse! OS goddam 9.

Eh, no. That would be news to me. I've always had to use third-party drivers under OS 7-9 to utilize mice with multiple buttons as well, but since those were in fact available as they are under OS X, that wasn't a problem.

I'm not aware of support for more than the two basic buttons in Classic Mac OS.

Quoting tugger (Reply 40):Funny thing is that many people think I am strange when I tell them that "Right click" is a very important tool to me and one of the things I do not like about Apple. I like my nine-button Logitech mouse, it is important to me. I want to hit one thing to access whatever function i have mapped to that button, I don't want to "hold down this first, then you can do that".

OS X relies on context menus to a much smaller degree than Windows does. They are almost never necessary, they are merely convenient at times. And they have been there since at least Classic Mac OS 8 (can't be bothered to look up the details right now). Most of the time there are multiple ways of doing things, with the context menu being just one of them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 41):That, price and the inconsistent GUI are my main complaints about OS X.

Are you kidding? Relative to what, exactly, particularly with respect to a wider range of real-world applications? Sure you'll find some inconsistencies like absolutely everywhere else, but the level of UI consistency overall is far greater than on any other major platform I'm aware of.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 42):The Apple faithful don't understand right-clicking and for a good reason, Apple never made a mouse worth a damn after 1997 and their attempts at a multi-button mouse (with a touch interface instead of actual buttons) is an ergonomic nightmare.

I have to disagree there. Their first optical mouse (the clear translucent one) was one of the best and most pleasant ones I've ever used. The Magic Mouse was also very nice, but ...

Quoting Asturias (Reply 42):So the solution: trackpads for desktops! Swipe with different fingers to achieve what a simple button achieves without error. Even three and four finger swipes. Ergonomic nightmares in and of themselves, not to mention the carpal tunnel inducing trackpad.

…the Magic Trackpad is just the best pointing device I've ever had (and I've used quite a few through the years).

Contrary to you I've been using it since it came out and it has substantially reduced my wrist strain relative to the mice (and even one capacitive pen-based trackpad) I've had before.

Ergonomically it's simpler, more direct, more pleasant and less straining than any other pointing device I've ever used.

Yes, it requires a bit of flexibility to adapt to the new capabilities, but it's absolutely worth it, particularly with the near-infinite capability enhancements to be had through BetterTouchTool (although Lion already provides a good chunk of its power).

One of our main differences appears to be that while change seems to pain and inconvenience you above all, it usually intrigues me and gives me new opportunities. Apple is pretty ruthless in ditching legacy stuff, and while that's obviously anathema for some, it's refreshing and attractive for others.

People differ. But you might just be better served by a more conservative platform which provides endless backward compatibility above all. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own.

Quoting tugger (Reply 40):When did Apple's "influence on the computing field" decline? Why even include that element in your reply?

I was talking about Microsoft, and they did indeed lose their control of the IT field during the Longhorn debacle, which was my direct point. Their failure to bring the XP successor to market cost them dearly and exacerbated their multiple other troubles they experienced at the same time (much of it backlash from their own excessively aggressive schemes backfiring at last).

Quoting cmf (Reply 39):But my comment was targeted at crashes, not performance. For raw performance you can build far superior windows systems than OS X systems (the use Mac is going away with this release.)

Near the end of a model's lifecycle this gets of course somewhat easier and cheaper, but this routinely reverses again with the regular model upgrade. Given the struggle other manufacturers currently face in even just matching the existing Macs across the board (beyond just a few of their features at the expense of the others) Apple's in a pretty good position overall.

And effectively the entire Mac lineup will get a major overhaul this year, with the Mac Pro getting updated Xeon dual-socket CPUs and all other Macs being switched to the new Ivy Bridge CPU line. So what you're seeing right now is already the low point in the cycle – and they've still grown aggressively above the PC market.

If your particular preferences can be met more cheaply on the PC side, good for you. But more and more people are getting tired of the tradeoffs being made there and increasingly opt for the kinds of tradeoffs Apple makes. Purchase price equalizes pretty quickly spread out over the total usage time – total cost of ownership is often exactly the other way around, however, so it's often just a question of taking the short vs. the long view.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):Hmm, have taken essentially brand new but water damaged units to the store and been told it is cheaper to buy new on multiple occasions.

The cheaper the product, the likelier it's a throwaway when something major happens to it. It's one of the rules of mass-produced goods, and even Apple's cheaper products are subject to it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):Quoting Asturias (Reply 30):
It's the same stuff as a PC only with an Apple logo and a higher price tag.

Pretty much sums it up. The main difference is that for Mac Apple controls everything so drivers, etc work better.

If you say so. For those of us who primarily interact with a computer not on the barebones hardware level, writing our own OS from scratch in assembly or in binary directly, things look a bit differently, though. (I've actually done that a few times – it's not something I'd want to do on a PC level, though!)

Among things I appreciate is that I have one manufacturer to turn to when things don't work, without getting the runaround and my issue falling through the cracks between a hardware manufacturer and an OS manufacturer.

That I can effectively just copy my entire system installation over from one machine to another and it will simply continue to work – applications, settings and documents intact and usable right away (in more recent times from an automatically performed incremental backup) without having to manually reinstall anything.

That the system works with an absolute minimum of maintenance effort. I could hammer absolutely every system into submission if I had to – I'm just bored and annoyed if I actually have to waste my time on nonsense like that.

That I have a certified Unix under the hood and still a fully commercially supported GUI on top at the same time.

And last but not least that more often than not, especially as a developer myself I come to appreciate that the entire system has visibly been created by people who actually give a damn about their product, right down to many, many details which are actually thought through and implemented properly, from the abstract concept through custom-made hardware through fully adapted OS mechanisms up to a clean and easy-to-use graphical interface.

Whether a product has been slapped together to fill a marketing requirement or whether it has been made by people obsessing over the actual, practical user experience is quite noticeable, particularly the longer one uses it.

I'm a hardware and software developer. I appreciate such things. And it seems many "civilians" do too.

There's absolutely no requirement that everybody had to see it that same way. It would just be nice to stay halfway civil while discussing such issues.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):May have missed it mentioned above but learned today that Mountain Lion will only run on computers sold 2008 and later.

Nope. The separation line is not that simple. Various Macs from 2007 are supported as well. It seems the division line involves both support for a 64-bit kernel (OS X can run 64bit applications even on a 32bit kernel – but it seems that capability will not be supported any longer, and 64bit will become a requirement for the kernel now).

As usual, Mountain Lion will bring substantial upgrades under the hood, most of whom will become visible to the user only via new applications later on. And these upgrades are not known yet for the most part (although the graphics subsystem appears to be getting a major kick forward).

User-side the changes are very welcome and had been due for a while now. Good to see they're cleaning things up this way. Good choices in general as far as I can see.

The details will get interesting – expect a major article at ars technica as usual when the internals become official.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 43):
As for repairing one, it might be true regarding Apple, but last time I checked, most laptops nowadays come with access panels underneath which make replacing parts easy, at least those that tend to break down more often, namely the harddrive or RAM. Or Steve Job's forbid, the user decides to upgrade the ram or harddrive on its own.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. All Macs except the MacBook Air (which has fixed memory) explicitly support user access to memory and mass storage, including illustrated how-tos in the user manuals (the iMac is the exception with regard to its internal drives, but it, too, has an explicitly user-serviceable RAM door)..

And good luck trying to repair a modern multilayer motherboard chock full with huge BGA and fine-pitch SMD chips with three- to four-digit pin/ball counts and vast amounts of microscopic, unlabeled passive components with anything below serious lab equipment on your own.

Things "everybody knows" are almost always wrong, as they are in this case.

I've started in the era where you could actually repair your computer with your grandpa's soldering iron and regular wires and conventional DIL chips, not even needing a microscope or a logic analyzer. (The schematics were in the manual!) But one price to pay for the gigantic performance increase since then is that these times are long gone and won't be coming back, regardless of the brand you're buying.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):Are you kidding? Relative to what, exactly, particularly with respect to a wider range of real-world applications? Sure you'll find some inconsistencies like absolutely everywhere else, but the level of UI consistency overall is far greater than on any other major platform I'm aware of.

Not kidding. Windows is far more consistent. Maybe you have become to used to them to notice.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):If your particular preferences can be met more cheaply on the PC side, good for you. But more and more people are getting tired of the tradeoffs being made there and increasingly opt for the kinds of tradeoffs Apple makes. Purchase price equalizes pretty quickly spread out over the total usage time – total cost of ownership is often exactly the other way around, however, so it's often just a question of taking the short vs. the long view.

Apple never offer the highest performance possible, their line is too limited for that. Be that CPU power, RAM, graphics or storage. It is however plenty enough for almost every situation.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):The cheaper the product, the likelier it's a throwaway when something major happens to it. It's one of the rules of mass-produced goods, and even Apple's cheaper products are subject to it.

You mean cheap products like MacBook Air

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):Nope. The separation line is not that simple. Various Macs from 2007 are supported as well. It seems the division line involves both support for a 64-bit kernel (OS X can run 64bit applications even on a 32bit kernel – but it seems that capability will not be supported any longer, and 64bit will become a requirement for the kernel now).

It came from the store manager at my local Apple store, who I have known and worked with more than 3 years. The issue is related to the graphic cards supported.

User interfaces and usage conventions vary wildly between applications; Even Microsoft itself doesn't stick to a consistent UI, much less so third-party Windows developers.

Mac applications have always been far more consistent in appearance and in the way they operated, not least due to consistent framework support and well-designed guidelines (which are also enforced when admitting or rejecting applications for the respective App Stores). Exceptions exist on the Mac side as well, but they are actually exceptions, not the rule.

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):Apple never offer the highest performance possible, their line is too limited for that. Be that CPU power, RAM, graphics or storage. It is however plenty enough for almost every situation.

Well, for decently balanced allround machines they usually place at or near the top performance in most comparisons.

They go for very different targets than most PC manufacturers, though, so direct comparisons are not easy to make.

Where most of the PC manufacturers insist on the classic tower for the desktop, Apple uses that form only for the dual-socket Mac Pro at the workstation level and diversifies into the ultra-low-power Mac mini and the all-in-one iMac which are effectively without direct counterparts.

Where cheap, fat and flimsy plastic notebooks are the mainstay of the PC portable segment, Apple completely ignores that segment and effectively makes only the equivalent of high-end business notebooks and (comparatively) very affordable sub-notebooks, undermining the PC notebooks primarily with the iPad otherwise. Competitors have been trying to match all these machines, but most of them have failed to get there, not least because Apple has gained a much stronger position with suppliers and much larger numbers for each of their models in the respective segment.

Given that both the old PC tower and the cheap plastic notebook are mature, but stagnant and low-margin products with very few opportunities left in them, Apple effectively squeezes the competition out of the highly profitable segments the PC manufacturers have never developed properly but still relied on for compensating margins.

The alienware top models are among the victims there: Extremely specialized gaming rigs which are absolutely terrible in practically every respect except their core target: Pumping out maximum framerates. That target market is just not big enough to sustain larger sales numbers. And optimizing a still high-performance machine at the same time for weight, volume, battery life, display quality and other features is much, much more difficult than going all out on one feature while sacrificing everything else.

Finding tradeoffs which work really well for very many users is very difficult and can be very expensive; Besides Apple, how many manufacturers invest the kind of money into their machines to make that really work?

Sure, since that is indeed the low end of their portable lineup by now. Given what they've squeezed into it, especially the 11" model has limited margins and will be less efficient to repair than a MacBook Pro.

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):It came from the store manager at my local Apple store, who I have known and worked with more than 3 years. The issue is related to the graphic cards supported.

It's not quite that simple, and as I said: There are several 2007 machines in the supported lineup. It's not a cutoff date, but there are cutoff features. And the graphics hardware seems to be just one of several among them.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 47):Well, for decently balanced allround machines they usually place at or near the top performance in most comparisons.

But now you're changing the criteria.

Apple has a great line up. But it isn't everything and not for every situation. Because Windows has more OEMs who need to differentiate their offerings there is more variety and part of that is ability to install more powerful components. Both have advantages and disadvantages. What is right or wrong depends on each individual situation.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 47):Sure, since that is indeed the low end of their portable lineup by now. Given what they've squeezed into it, especially the 11" model has limited margins and will be less efficient to repair than a MacBook Pro.

I did not say it happened with the current lineup. If I remember right it was an 1800 USD machine. That isn't a cheap machine.

Note: I'm not complaining about it. The user was incredibly stupid using the computer as a very inefficient umbrella. The cost got deducted from his salary.

Evidently I know it better than you - which is probably not saying much considering you seem to constantly go blank when people present any concerns about the limitations of OS X and Mac hardware.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):(I still don't get why you keep constantly whining and whining about absolutely everything Apple at the top of your lungs but then claim you're still using their products – it's just highly implausible.)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that, only a seriously deluded person could reach that conclusion - let alone describing legitimate concerns as constant whining and whining. Believe what you want Klaus, I think my knowledge of all things Mac, both past and present, prove whether I use Apple products currently.

The fact is, I've seen this trend increasing, Apple users who aren't very happy about the iPlatform, the iToys, the iOSification and above all the iPologists.

That you perceive criticism as whining tells more about your staunch bias than anything else. Pucker up champ, it doesn't look like things are going to go any smoother in Macland when Apple discontinues the Mac Pro this summer.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): The Mac "supports" as many drivers as you want. I've used USB Overdrive under OS X to stuff my mouse with multiple combinations of buttons and other gestures to my heart's content, before ditching mice entirely a while ago.

Irrelevant, all OSs "support" as many drivers as are written for them - that's a meaningless statement. Of course OS X has third part drivers, like the one you point out (which costs 20 bucks) which do the job - but that's not an acceptable solution when the competition provides those drivers for free.

Good on you, btw, to go lockstep into the Apple kool-aid and get a trackpad! After all, why shouldn't a compromise control device made for laptops because mice weren't an option be any worse than a mouse?

Nevermind that letdown, the lack of drivers for a simple mouse - the really pathetic thing is the GPU drivers Apple provides. Do you have any third party, 20 bucks a pop, drivers that replace and improve the GPU in OS X? No?

Aw shucks. Macs are supposed to be the superior experience, no?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): Eh, no. That would be news to me. I've always had to use third-party drivers under OS 7-9 to utilize mice with multiple buttons as well, but since those were in fact available as they are under OS X, that wasn't a problem.

Evidently that would be news to you, fortunately reality doesn't depend on what you know or not. Fact is OS 9 supports every single button on a 7 button Logitech mouse that was made some 8 years after Mac OS 9 was discontinued. That's pretty decent.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): I'm not aware of support for more than the two basic buttons in Classic Mac OS.

Indeed, well the reason why I was using a G4 Mac (a first gen eMac as it happens) is that I was running Mac OS 9 on it for Deus Ex, a fine game which unfortunately was never supported in OS X and doesn't run in Classic. Funny thing, that game uses Game Sprockets for input support - and sports the ability to program every single button on the mouse.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): I have to disagree there. Their first optical mouse (the clear translucent one) was one of the best and most pleasant ones I've ever used. The Magic Mouse was also very nice, but ...

Disagree all you want, every single mouse from Apple since the ADBII has been an ergonomic disaster, especially the puck that Steve designed. Dear Lord! The Mighty Mouse and Magic Mouse were both jokes, not fitting in anyone's palm and click-dragging on those bastards... well it's hard to explain, but try to click, drag, lift the mouse to continue dragging farther and *boom* unless one is holding it in a very particular way, it loses the click.

Amazingly shoddy design. Looks pretty good though. And that's the point of the design. Form over function.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): Contrary to you I've been using it since it came out and it has substantially reduced my wrist strain relative to the mice (and even one capacitive pen-based trackpad) I've had before.

All trackpads are the same, flat panels sitting very low - be it basically level with a desk or laptop. There is no wrist support, obviously. So unless you're anatomically different from humans, then you are certainly not being completely truthful about your wrist strain. The number one problem with trackpads, since always, is that they're difficult on the wrist.

iOS devices with their touch screen aren't such a pain to use since one can use the thumbs instead, and one approaches the touch surface from a different angle.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): Ergonomically it's simpler, more direct, more pleasant and less straining than any other pointing device I've ever used.

Actually, since you've been using Apple mice a lot, perhaps the strain isn't all that much worse. All things Apple aren't all good. Some things Apple has made is downright lousy. That's a thought every sane person should consider at least once in a while.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): Yes, it requires a bit of flexibility to adapt to the new capabilities, but it's absolutely worth it, particularly with the near-infinite capability enhancements to be had through BetterTouchTool (although Lion already provides a good chunk of its power).

No it doesn't require much flexibility to adapt, at least not in the case of anyone who has any experience using a laptop - which includes pretty much everyone. It's just that people don't use trackpads on laptops because they're better than mice, but rather because they can't use mice. The trackpad is a compromise design, allowing for control of a mouse pointer in an acceptable fashion, but is both more imprecise, slower and ergonomically bad to use.

The trackpad isn't new. It's very old, in fact older than lasertracking mice. It's possible to get used to it, but people can get used to anything. It'll always be far simpler for anyone to press a button than make a four finger upwards swipe. As for other things, and your "near-infinite" enhancements with 3rd party add on - it's possible to use mouse gestures too.

But a keyboard shorcut is faster than either mouse or trackpad, so that's neither here nor there.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): One of our main differences appears to be that while change seems to pain and inconvenience you above all, it usually intrigues me and gives me new opportunities. Apple is pretty ruthless in ditching legacy stuff, and while that's obviously anathema for some, it's refreshing and attractive for others.

Perhaps it would be pleasing to you if that was actually true, any of the above. But alas, no. Our main difference is just this: you accept without criticism anything that Apple offers as being good, by virtue of it being from Apple. I see it also with a certain positive bias towards Apple, thinking at least that it's worth looking at, but if it fails to meet my expectations - well that's that. I don't look back. I guess I'm even more ruthless in "ditching legacy stuff" since anything that isn't up to snuff in my book that comes from Apple immediately becomes legacy stuff.

I embrace change, if it is good. I qualify my interest in change, I do not fear it. I adore it when something good changes things and I don't when change is forced on dubious premise. Especially when it is supposed to revolutionize or make things better "in the future" but isn't quite working now. Like a lot of Apple "revolutions" lately.

In fact, when looking at Apple's track record on introducing truly amazing or actually revolutionizing improvements, it's a pretty spotty record - and pretty far between actual improvements.

Also it is wrong to claim that Apple is "pretty ruthless in ditching legacy stuff", Apple maintains immense legacy support in most areas. It is on the other hand ruthless to cut support to mildly old (3-4 year old) hardware, while software legacy is rather conservative on the whole - excepting of course seemingly arbitrary drop of legacy support, such as Rosetta and Classic. A program written for Mac OS X 10.0.0 will probably work on Lion. That's more than a decade old.

So Apple is selectively cutting support, cutting support to Rosetta and Classic, sure - but also Java and X11. Flash is on the way out. Despite what the Apple evangelist on the street might tell you, Apple didn't even drop support for the floppy drive until Snow Leopard. That's pretty decent legacy support.

It's how and why Apple drops support for things that people rightly criticize them. It was perhaps especially egregious to drop Rosetta. But no, even that backhanded complement of yours that Apple is not afraid to drop legacy support to move forward isn't verosimile.

It is an artificial way for Apple to force people to upgrade their hardware. That's all the revolution.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): People differ. But you might just be better served by a more conservative platform which provides endless backward compatibility above all. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own.

Meh, personally I'd be best served with a platform that's got all the necessary drivers, the best support, the best GPU drivers and a reasonable backwards compatibility. Nothing fancy, there's emulators that serve well for serious backwards compatibility.

Which reminds me, it's really amazing in a bad way, that Apple hasn't made or at least allowed a third party to make an Mac OS 9 emulator. Why they haven't made the Mac ROM public domain. What is wrong with them?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): If you say so. For those of us who primarily interact with a computer not on the barebones hardware level, writing our own OS from scratch in assembly or in binary directly, things look a bit differently, though. (I've actually done that a few times – it's not something I'd want to do on a PC level, though!)

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): As usual, Mountain Lion will bring substantial upgrades under the hood, most of whom will become visible to the user only via new applications later on. And these upgrades are not known yet for the most part (although the graphics subsystem appears to be getting a major kick forward).

You have no idea whether ML will bring any or even substantial upgrades "under the hood", Apple hasn't released any information on that - and somehow I'm sure you aren't one to break an NDA with Apple.

So you're basically offering the now rather stale Apple spiel, that we are revolutionizing once again, but in the future and you don't really see it. But it's there, trust us. Now enjoy our sandboxing that we're making mandatory this summer!!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 45): You clearly don't know what you're talking about. All Macs except the MacBook Air (which has fixed memory) explicitly support user access to memory and mass storage, including illustrated how-tos in the user manuals.

Yeah you know you're right on that one - excepting the Mac Book Air (an overpriced, overhyped POS if there ever was one) every Mac portable's RAM can easily be upgraded.

Anything else, on the other hand (e.g. hard drive) forget about it. In fact, one can't even upgrade the HD in a goddam iMac any more, not even if one is perfectly capable of ripping the thing apart (no small feat) because it needs a HD with a special Apple ROM. That one can't buy. Of course.

No, that you will usually be able to find a machine which will indeed exceed the respective Mac in at least one respect is just agreed – I was just pointing to the fact that Apple has never aimed at that, since they do indeed have too few models to "waste" one on an extreme niche. They've usually gone for niches which had been underdeveloped but which had potential in their eyes. And with few exceptions (Cube, I'm looking at you!) they've been right.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):Apple has a great line up. But it isn't everything and not for every situation. Because Windows has more OEMs who need to differentiate their offerings there is more variety and part of that is ability to install more powerful components. Both have advantages and disadvantages. What is right or wrong depends on each individual situation.

No dispute there again – it's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):I did not say it happened with the current lineup. If I remember right it was an 1800 USD machine. That isn't a cheap machine.

And a replacement motherboard alone exceeded that already? I would have expected it to be not very far below, but still below the new machine's cost. When you've got multiple other components in need of replacement, however, you can quickly go beyond...

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 50):If the Mac keeps its pace by 2025 will have the majority of the market... so enjoy your wintel machines while you can!

The mac is the past. I have used it for 25 years pretty heavily. For about the last 5 years, Mac OS has stagnated and development has basically stalled for 5 years. Mac OS has never moved so slowly since its origins before 1984. The early 2000s were a truly exciting time in the Mac OS world. But that was 10 years ago. Even the wifi handling is a bungled joke on Mac OS, just festering. I am a big mac fan, but WInXP still has ergonomic advantages. Mac was a great intermediate step for Apple, but I think their future exists away from OS X. I think in another 5 years, OS X as a "computer" platform will not exist. It will be outclassed by Ubuntu, which is already basically true now. In enterprise, I hear a rumor of Apple making inroads but that is very far away in true big enterprise. The individual tools in enterprise are bought in 10 year intervals, and they need to be mutually compatible. MSFT will last 50 years just on momentum. Apple could face plant as quickly as Sony, which took about 8-10 years to fall completely flat.

Consumer commodities based primarily on styling and price come and go. Today's hot company won't be so hot tomorrow. I enjoy Apple but exactly because they used to struggle and innovate. So-called "iPad 3" or whatever is not innovation. It is a momentum play, just like Microsoft or Toyota. Only in Apple's industry it is far harder (I will say impossibly) to pull off momentum in consumer electronics. Some Chinese or companies will be shaming Apple before this decade is out. The following decade, Indian designed companies will shame the Chinese.